6 ms·

British Prime Minister Suggests Banning Some Online Messaging Apps

106 points by t0dd 12y ago

eterm 12y ago
Already discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8874624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8874624 although I think that one is being negatively scored for the high number of (low upvote) comments.
higherpurpose 12y ago
> Yet in a sign that tech companies are coming under increased scrutiny, British lawmakers blamed Facebook in November for failing to tell the country’s authorities about specific online threats made by two men, who later killed a soldier in London in 2013. That seems misleading. From what I remember they were accusing Facebook not of "refusing to give them the info", but for "not warning them" about those guys' communications. So they essentially wanted Facebook to do the policing for them, because they failed to do the policing themselves.
underpants 12y ago
That's a fine whitelist of messaging systems to use if there ever was one!
- dsl 12y ago
  Snapchat at least is already known to be vulnerable to simple attacks, so I wouldn't put too much weight behind this list. He is likely just using common examples that people recognize, and the law will be applied broadly to apps like RedPhone and SilentText.
marlinspire 12y ago
According to Snowden and subsequent whistleblowers considerable resources are tasked to obsessing over political opponents , groups such as Occupy , anti-fracking and even competing business interests are targeted. In Britain the Security Forces have long been seen as a bit too obsessed with lefties. There is inneffective Security Theatre at airports - a political sop. What else is inneffective? Are there innefective secret things ? I would like to see any journalist ask : Are the security services watching radical Islam enough or wasting their resources on what the electorate would consider the wrong targets ? Will the Security Services having decryption keys to my communications make them more insecure to non-government agents ? Will how secure the keys are be secret ? What other governments , agencies and contractors will the keys to our communications be shared with ? What oversight will there be ?
MLR 12y ago
It'll never get any traction, the porn filters got through because pretty much no voting adults were bothered by it. Very different scenario when it's something that people actually use, especially with elections coming up.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
This after attending the march in France for liberty and freedom of speech. Hypocrite. It's also worth mentioning the Mayor of London's thoughts on this: "I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to."
- stephenr 12y ago
  One only needs to watch Boris Johnson (mayor of London) in his top gear appearance several years ago (just the driving part is enough) to understand how utterly stupid this man is. He is a trained seal that performs for treats.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    I used to think that but I read somewhere an ex-employee said that it's all an act. If it is clearly it works because he's liked by too many people. The worry of course is that it's likely he'll end up running for Prime Minister someday soon.
    - stephenr 12y ago
      Whether he's an idiot who acts like an idiot or a genius who acts like an idiot so people like him, he's still acting like an idiot. Just further evidence that politicians are inherently crazy, by their nature of wanting to be politicians
- BjoernKW 12y ago
  > "I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to." Yeah, because that worked so well with perpetrators of the attacks in Paris. These people were actually well-known to authorities as were some of the people who committed the 9/11 attacks. If anything we need to make government and administrative processes both much more transparent and efficient. I don't think inundating authorities with yet another stream of data they can't possibly make sense of particularly helps the cause.
p01926 12y ago
David Cameron wasn't just arguing against encrypted messaging apps; he would like to ban secret online communication in general. It will be interesting to see how he squares this with bolstering cybersecurity, which he'll be discussing with Barak Obama later this week. How can we explain to politicians the extent to which modernity is built upon tools like encryption? How can we explain the brute fact of the possibility of secret communication, whether they approve or not? And can we guess how much damage they'll inflict in these Canutian escapades?
- dangayle 12y ago
  Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  It will be interesting to see how he squares this with bolstering cybersecurity With a lie to placate the people, if he tries at all. Government (like the snooping corporations before them) only want "nobody but us" levels of security. Some countries have already manged to get it from some services (off the top of my head BBM and India).
MarcScott 12y ago
I wonder if I were to locally encrypt a message using AES and then send it via email to a friend, using a pre-shared key, whether I would be breaking the law or not, in Cameron's Brave New World? If the answer is yes, then how about the Vigenere cipher? The Caesar Cipher? 1337 speak? Writing my message backwards? Making spelling mistakes?
- kondro 12y ago
  Yes, because of his intent for the changed law.
- pizzeys 12y ago
  Heaven forbid you use a one-time pad...
- LLWM 12y ago
  You just need to give GCHQ a copy of the key.
AdeptusAquinas 12y ago
This sort of thing seems a bit like banning Napster. Eliminating the products doesn't eliminate the technology - although I expect the bigger players like Facebook to push back on this so as not to be out competed by smaller companies that care less about adhering to such 'blunt force' laws.
sd8f9iu 12y ago
Honestly, why do people think that a terrorist attack like this requires any dramatic changes to society? The fact is that some guys got guns and shot up a building, in the name of a currently popular, violent ideology. When will we ever be able to completely eradicate this? The number of people killed per year in the Western world due to terrorist attacks is incredibly low. Perhaps we don't need a routing of our security apparatus and freedoms to prevent what, without the inclusion of radical Islam, would be seen as an violent crime. We got two wars in the wake of 9/11, and I don't think there was any actual increased terrorist threat.
- rosser 12y ago
  Because people are absolutely terrible at rationally evaluating risk. Consider people who are terrified of flying, but think nothing of texting while driving. That's (if slightly exaggerated) a pretty representative example of the general human calculus of risk. The big, scary, but terrifically unlikely event factors more significantly into our fears than the prosaic, equally deadly, but vastly more likely one.
  - LLWM 12y ago
    In general, people correctly evaluate risk. The only situations that are completely modeled with a naive expected value are ones that are too simple to occur in real life. That's why things like the St Petersburg lottery are considered "paradoxes" but are easy to humans to understand using intuition.
- Cyther606 12y ago
  Because shocking attacks get the public's attention. With all eyes on the TV screen, it's the perfect time to introduce public policy changes that strip people of their rights. All the better if I can defend my statements by inciting a sense of nationalism or publicly shared responsibility for preventing future heinous crimes. This is the raw video of the shooting of the French policeman: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668 Here it is in slow motion, zoomed in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_c4IUO6h7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_c4IUO6h7w We are told this is footage of a 7.62mm round fired into a target at point blank range. With no recoil exhibited by the rifle, no blood present anywhere on the scene, and no violent head or body movement on part of the person "shot" at point blank range, it's very possible that blanks were fired and that this is yet another deep event meant to mislead the public into accepting a hidden agenda.
chrisdone 12y ago
I don't anticipate Brits will be hitting the streets in the name of right to privacy and net neutrality as the French have done for right to free speech, though. We are a cowardly, dull bunch, with little regard for our liberty, I'm afraid. We are matched in this only by our leaders' outmoded worldviews.
- Jimmed 12y ago
  I want so very much to disagree with you here, but I can't find the words to do so. This probably means you're right. I suggest we start a mass exodus to another country with equally melancholy weather and the guarantee of a Waitrose nearby.
  - fit2rule 12y ago
    Don't bother with the typical UK-expat landing zones: Australia, New Zealand, Santa Monica. These spots are already usurped by the fascists alas...
bjackman 12y ago
I'm surprised to find that this story has hit me pretty hard emotionally. The stuff Cameron and Theresa May are saying these days is really quite extreme. I feel totally abandoned by politics and genuinely, deeply frightened about the direction our legislature is headed. Is this a part of growing up? The mainstream is so far away from my own views that I don't have any voice. I'm really starting to see why a lot of libertarians in the US are so hyperbolic and full of panic.
- computerjunkie 12y ago
  Is this a part of growing up? A bit off topic: Ive asked myself this question in general for the past couple of months. People dying from wars and incidents that happened a couple of days ago makes me anxious, miserable, lost and helpless.Maybe its media amplifying everything, I don't know but its truly unpleasant.
  - t0dd 12y ago
    I completely relate to what you're saying, and I'm sure a lot of us here are burdened by the painful feelings you've expressed. Thank you for sharing. I think the primary cause is the 24/7 news cycle bombarding us incessantly with negative and depressing information. It's extremely unpleasant to bear, particularly when you're sensitive or vulnerable to the sufferings of humanity. I've found it's best to take vacations from it all--to tune it out completely for intervals--and focus entirely on work or the things you love. If you perchance have trouble avoiding news sites or social networks, as I have in the past, I've found an extension like StayFocusd to be really helpful (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stayfocusd/laankejkbhbdhmipfmgcngdelahlfoji?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stayfocusd/laankej...)
    - computerjunkie 12y ago
      Thanks for the reply, I do agree its the negativity everywhere being thrown at us, it really takes a toll on people who really care about these things. I already do avoid news sites and news papers when possible, thanks for the advice and the extension recommendation
Sir_Substance 12y ago
This is good news! By watching which messaging tools are banned in the UK, we will have a canonical list of which messaging tools GCHQ cannot breach. Thanks David!
- the8472 12y ago
  It's more likely that it would be a blanket ban even covering applications that are not particularly hardened simply because they don't have any official wiretapping capability.
- scott_karana 12y ago
  Far more likely case: Cameron wants to ban "scary" communications, and hasn't talked to GHCQ at all.
D4AHNGM 12y ago
If most of the UK didn't already think Cameron was an arse this could really damage his reputation.
idlemind 12y ago
I can't tell whether this is hubris, technical naïveté or just an attempt to garner votes. Possibly all three. But let's assume they are proposing a ban on communications methods that cannot be lawfully intercepted (that's certainly how Cameron words it). Firstly, we know it's technically infeasible, secondly it would have a serious chilling effect on UK Internet companies and the digital economy, and thirdly it would actually take very popular apps and tools from young voters hands. So does he really think people will be panicked enough by the threat of terrorism to vote for it?

106 points by t0dd 12y ago

eterm 12y ago

Already discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8874624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8874624 although I think that one is being negatively scored for the high number of (low upvote) comments.

higherpurpose 12y ago

> Yet in a sign that tech companies are coming under increased scrutiny, British lawmakers blamed Facebook in November for failing to tell the country’s authorities about specific online threats made by two men, who later killed a soldier in London in 2013. That seems misleading. From what I remember they were accusing Facebook not of "refusing to give them the info", but for "not warning them" about those guys' communications. So they essentially wanted Facebook to do the policing for them, because they failed to do the policing themselves.

underpants 12y ago

That's a fine whitelist of messaging systems to use if there ever was one!

dsl 12y ago
Snapchat at least is already known to be vulnerable to simple attacks, so I wouldn't put too much weight behind this list. He is likely just using common examples that people recognize, and the law will be applied broadly to apps like RedPhone and SilentText.

marlinspire 12y ago

According to Snowden and subsequent whistleblowers considerable resources are tasked to obsessing over political opponents , groups such as Occupy , anti-fracking and even competing business interests are targeted. In Britain the Security Forces have long been seen as a bit too obsessed with lefties. There is inneffective Security Theatre at airports - a political sop. What else is inneffective? Are there innefective secret things ? I would like to see any journalist ask : Are the security services watching radical Islam enough or wasting their resources on what the electorate would consider the wrong targets ? Will the Security Services having decryption keys to my communications make them more insecure to non-government agents ? Will how secure the keys are be secret ? What other governments , agencies and contractors will the keys to our communications be shared with ? What oversight will there be ?

MLR 12y ago

It'll never get any traction, the porn filters got through because pretty much no voting adults were bothered by it. Very different scenario when it's something that people actually use, especially with elections coming up.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

This after attending the march in France for liberty and freedom of speech. Hypocrite. It's also worth mentioning the Mayor of London's thoughts on this: "I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to."

stephenr 12y ago
One only needs to watch Boris Johnson (mayor of London) in his top gear appearance several years ago (just the driving part is enough) to understand how utterly stupid this man is. He is a trained seal that performs for treats.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  I used to think that but I read somewhere an ex-employee said that it's all an act. If it is clearly it works because he's liked by too many people. The worry of course is that it's likely he'll end up running for Prime Minister someday soon.
  - stephenr 12y ago
    Whether he's an idiot who acts like an idiot or a genius who acts like an idiot so people like him, he's still acting like an idiot. Just further evidence that politicians are inherently crazy, by their nature of wanting to be politicians
BjoernKW 12y ago
> "I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to." Yeah, because that worked so well with perpetrators of the attacks in Paris. These people were actually well-known to authorities as were some of the people who committed the 9/11 attacks. If anything we need to make government and administrative processes both much more transparent and efficient. I don't think inundating authorities with yet another stream of data they can't possibly make sense of particularly helps the cause.

p01926 12y ago

David Cameron wasn't just arguing against encrypted messaging apps; he would like to ban secret online communication in general. It will be interesting to see how he squares this with bolstering cybersecurity, which he'll be discussing with Barak Obama later this week. How can we explain to politicians the extent to which modernity is built upon tools like encryption? How can we explain the brute fact of the possibility of secret communication, whether they approve or not? And can we guess how much damage they'll inflict in these Canutian escapades?

dangayle 12y ago
Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
forgottenpass 12y ago
It will be interesting to see how he squares this with bolstering cybersecurity With a lie to placate the people, if he tries at all. Government (like the snooping corporations before them) only want "nobody but us" levels of security. Some countries have already manged to get it from some services (off the top of my head BBM and India).

MarcScott 12y ago

I wonder if I were to locally encrypt a message using AES and then send it via email to a friend, using a pre-shared key, whether I would be breaking the law or not, in Cameron's Brave New World? If the answer is yes, then how about the Vigenere cipher? The Caesar Cipher? 1337 speak? Writing my message backwards? Making spelling mistakes?

kondro 12y ago
Yes, because of his intent for the changed law.
pizzeys 12y ago
Heaven forbid you use a one-time pad...
LLWM 12y ago
You just need to give GCHQ a copy of the key.

AdeptusAquinas 12y ago

This sort of thing seems a bit like banning Napster. Eliminating the products doesn't eliminate the technology - although I expect the bigger players like Facebook to push back on this so as not to be out competed by smaller companies that care less about adhering to such 'blunt force' laws.

sd8f9iu 12y ago

Honestly, why do people think that a terrorist attack like this requires any dramatic changes to society? The fact is that some guys got guns and shot up a building, in the name of a currently popular, violent ideology. When will we ever be able to completely eradicate this? The number of people killed per year in the Western world due to terrorist attacks is incredibly low. Perhaps we don't need a routing of our security apparatus and freedoms to prevent what, without the inclusion of radical Islam, would be seen as an violent crime. We got two wars in the wake of 9/11, and I don't think there was any actual increased terrorist threat.

rosser 12y ago
Because people are absolutely terrible at rationally evaluating risk. Consider people who are terrified of flying, but think nothing of texting while driving. That's (if slightly exaggerated) a pretty representative example of the general human calculus of risk. The big, scary, but terrifically unlikely event factors more significantly into our fears than the prosaic, equally deadly, but vastly more likely one.
- LLWM 12y ago
  In general, people correctly evaluate risk. The only situations that are completely modeled with a naive expected value are ones that are too simple to occur in real life. That's why things like the St Petersburg lottery are considered "paradoxes" but are easy to humans to understand using intuition.
Cyther606 12y ago
Because shocking attacks get the public's attention. With all eyes on the TV screen, it's the perfect time to introduce public policy changes that strip people of their rights. All the better if I can defend my statements by inciting a sense of nationalism or publicly shared responsibility for preventing future heinous crimes. This is the raw video of the shooting of the French policeman: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668 Here it is in slow motion, zoomed in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_c4IUO6h7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_c4IUO6h7w We are told this is footage of a 7.62mm round fired into a target at point blank range. With no recoil exhibited by the rifle, no blood present anywhere on the scene, and no violent head or body movement on part of the person "shot" at point blank range, it's very possible that blanks were fired and that this is yet another deep event meant to mislead the public into accepting a hidden agenda.

chrisdone 12y ago

I don't anticipate Brits will be hitting the streets in the name of right to privacy and net neutrality as the French have done for right to free speech, though. We are a cowardly, dull bunch, with little regard for our liberty, I'm afraid. We are matched in this only by our leaders' outmoded worldviews.

Jimmed 12y ago
I want so very much to disagree with you here, but I can't find the words to do so. This probably means you're right. I suggest we start a mass exodus to another country with equally melancholy weather and the guarantee of a Waitrose nearby.
- fit2rule 12y ago
  Don't bother with the typical UK-expat landing zones: Australia, New Zealand, Santa Monica. These spots are already usurped by the fascists alas...

bjackman 12y ago

I'm surprised to find that this story has hit me pretty hard emotionally. The stuff Cameron and Theresa May are saying these days is really quite extreme. I feel totally abandoned by politics and genuinely, deeply frightened about the direction our legislature is headed. Is this a part of growing up? The mainstream is so far away from my own views that I don't have any voice. I'm really starting to see why a lot of libertarians in the US are so hyperbolic and full of panic.

computerjunkie 12y ago
Is this a part of growing up? A bit off topic: Ive asked myself this question in general for the past couple of months. People dying from wars and incidents that happened a couple of days ago makes me anxious, miserable, lost and helpless.Maybe its media amplifying everything, I don't know but its truly unpleasant.
- t0dd 12y ago
  I completely relate to what you're saying, and I'm sure a lot of us here are burdened by the painful feelings you've expressed. Thank you for sharing. I think the primary cause is the 24/7 news cycle bombarding us incessantly with negative and depressing information. It's extremely unpleasant to bear, particularly when you're sensitive or vulnerable to the sufferings of humanity. I've found it's best to take vacations from it all--to tune it out completely for intervals--and focus entirely on work or the things you love. If you perchance have trouble avoiding news sites or social networks, as I have in the past, I've found an extension like StayFocusd to be really helpful (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stayfocusd/laankejkbhbdhmipfmgcngdelahlfoji?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stayfocusd/laankej...)
  - computerjunkie 12y ago
    Thanks for the reply, I do agree its the negativity everywhere being thrown at us, it really takes a toll on people who really care about these things. I already do avoid news sites and news papers when possible, thanks for the advice and the extension recommendation

Sir_Substance 12y ago

This is good news! By watching which messaging tools are banned in the UK, we will have a canonical list of which messaging tools GCHQ cannot breach. Thanks David!

the8472 12y ago
It's more likely that it would be a blanket ban even covering applications that are not particularly hardened simply because they don't have any official wiretapping capability.
scott_karana 12y ago
Far more likely case: Cameron wants to ban "scary" communications, and hasn't talked to GHCQ at all.

D4AHNGM 12y ago

If most of the UK didn't already think Cameron was an arse this could really damage his reputation.

idlemind 12y ago

I can't tell whether this is hubris, technical naïveté or just an attempt to garner votes. Possibly all three. But let's assume they are proposing a ban on communications methods that cannot be lawfully intercepted (that's certainly how Cameron words it). Firstly, we know it's technically infeasible, secondly it would have a serious chilling effect on UK Internet companies and the digital economy, and thirdly it would actually take very popular apps and tools from young voters hands. So does he really think people will be panicked enough by the threat of terrorism to vote for it?